Now you may be thinking, Leyhane has finally jumped the shark (if you click on the link in this sentence you'll discover the origin of that familiar phrase, if you didn't know it already, and you'll understand the illustration accompanying this post). I suppose, after more than 3500 posts here on Page One, that possibility has to be considered. Obviously, filing as a write-in candidate for any judicial vacancy in the Democratic primary would be a complete and total waste of time.
But I wasn't thinking of the Democratic primary. The Republicans have one, too, you know. And it's not like they're using it or anything. Not for any countywide judicial offices in Cook County, anyway. There are Republican primary candidates only in the 13th Subcircuit.
In Illinois, write-in votes don't count unless the person written in has filed a proper Declaration of Intent.
If you think about it, that makes sense. Otherwise school and library and park district boards around the state would occasionally elect Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. Or someone might get 'volunteered' for an elected office as a prank. But, if a person is willing to run as a write-in for a judicial vacancy in the forthcoming Republican primary, and does what is required to qualify for the ballot, and gets just a couple of friends or relations to take the time and trouble to write in the candidate's name, said person could very well wind up on the November ballot.
This course of action would not be recommended for anyone who harbors any hope of ever, at any time, receiving the endorsement of the Cook County Democratic Party or any subcircuit subdivision thereof. But it could be a useful, if thankless, public service.
Let me explain.
Most people don't vote in primary elections. Most FWIW readers do, certainly, but most people don't.
In the 2020 primary, turnout in suburban Cook County was only 29.4%. Turnout in the City was better -- but, still, only 37.78%. The ISBE confirms that voter turnout in Cook County for the 2020 primary was 33.54%. Two out of three registered voters didn't bother with the primary at all.
And 2020 was a presidential election year. Turnouts in gubernatorial years, like this one, tend to be smaller still. Even when the primary isn't moved from the vicinity of the Feast of St. Patrick to Mel Brooks's birthday.
Case in point: Only 30.84% of those eligible in Cook County bothered to vote in the 2018 primary, according to the ISBE. Turnout among Cook County voters was an abysmal 16.26% in the 2014 primary, according to the ISBE.
And yet -- since the Republican Party doesn't even bother to put up candidates for judge in Cook County except sometimes in a couple of outlying subcircuits -- almost all (and certainly the vast majority) of Cook County judicial elections are determined by the outcome of the Democratic Primary.
But not every primary voter takes a Democratic ballot, even in Cook County.
In the 2020 primary, according to the Combined Summary released by the Cook County Clerk's Office, over 72,000 Cook County voters asked for Republican ballots. Those 72,000 voters -- although they actually showed up on Primary Election Day, or properly mailed in ballots on or before Primary Election Day, were denied the opportunity to vote in most judicial races. In nearly all judicial races.
Over 313,000 Cook County voters took Republican ballots in 2016. They did not get to vote in most judicial races either. Same goes for the more than 136,000 who took Republican ballots in Cook County in 2018. Or the more than 167,000 who took Republican ballots in 2014.
And, of course, when all those voters who didn't vote in the primary show up for the general election, they have no say in who serves as a judge in this county.
Our judicial system depends on the confidence of the population as a whole. When people show up in November ready to do their civic duty, only to find that they have no vote in judicial races, their confidence in the our election system and in our judiciary may understandably diminish.
If qualified lawyers are willing to step forward now and, yes, hijack the Republican primary, they will likely lose in the general election. But, even in defeat, write-in "Republican" candidates will have rendered a public service by giving voters in November the opportunity to make choices in Cook County judicial races.
And such write-in candidates might render a public service in another way, too: Their very presence on the ballot might cause the powers-that-be to seriously consider a nonpartisan judicial primary.
The mayor of Chicago and all 50 Chicago alderpersons are elected on an officially nonpartisan basis -- but the judges of our courts are required to run in partisan primaries. How ridiculous is that?
It's not as if a nonpartisan judicial primary would deprive the Cook County Democratic Party of the opportunity to select and support judicial candidates. The influence of the Democratic Party would remain overwhelming for the foreseeable future, even with a nonpartisan primary. Have nonpartisan primaries deprived the Democratic Party of the ability to elect alderpersons and mayors in Chicago?
A nonpartisan primary would only build public confidence in our judiciary... and it would prevent wise guys in the future from hijacking another party's unused primary and setting up unexpected November contests. But, this year, the opportunity exists.
Ok, Trump. Whatever. You haven’t jumped the shark, you’ve lost your mind.
ReplyDeleteYou’re not wrong about the problems with partisan primaries in places where one party dominates. But solving them isn’t as easy as just switching to nonpartisan elections, especially not for judicial vacancies.
ReplyDeleteGoing nonpartisan means that many candidates will face runoffs. That’s a second contest on top of the first, eight months later (when most voters have long forgotten who was on the primary ballot). Already we’ve seen big increases in judicial campaign spending over time in Cook County—-the median per candidate has more than doubled in the past twenty years. And the number of candidates per vacancy is dropping towards levels not seen since the Daley machine years. Who will be left when the task doubles, and where will the additional money come from? Plus, whatever confidence the electorate might gain from nonpartisan voting would probably be offset by the increase in fundraising and politicking that candidates would have to do.
There is a way around this: ranked choice voting, which provides an instant runoff. It would be a tough sell in the current “stop-the-steal” climate and would require a lot of public education. But realistically you can’t enact nonpartisan elections without it. Otherwise you’re just switching one set of problems for another.
Oh wow. That Second District Supreme Court race has suffered its first 3 casualties.
ReplyDeleteDr. Klumpp -- Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
ReplyDeleteOf course you're right about the increased expense involved in a nonpartisan judicial election system. But I'd want runoffs -- it might not be better for the individual candidates (and probably wouldn't be), but it's better for the process. It would give citizens who come out to vote in a November election the opportunity to have some say in the selection of judges in this county -- something they almost never have now. If we're going to have a system of electing judges, we ought to have actual judicial elections.
The declining numbers of judicial candidates may be a trend that continues whether we have a nonpartisan process or not.
I am admittedly wary of a 'ranked voting' system. People are, as you suggest, conditioned to expect almost instant results after the polls close. Ranked voting would take time and doubt and suspicion could well fester during any delay.
There are times when I get almost despondent about judicial elections and I begin to question whether this site has, in some way, contributed to the trends you rightly see in, for example, the expenses of campaigns. Judicial elections were, once, different in kind from elections for other offices. But no one paid any attention to them. The Tribune would run one story in any election cycle, blasting one candidate for something -- the candidate's name -- or large family contributions -- mostly as a prop for another editorial in favor of merit selection. An unknown candidate -- I was one -- twice -- had no way to get his or her credentials out to the electorate. So I thought it would be helpful to call attention to judicial elections, to help the unknowns become known. That might improve the process, I thought.
And what has happened?
Candidates do look in -- as do persons with things to sell those candidates -- persons with experience running campaigns for other offices -- aldermen, state representatives, county commissioners -- and judicial candidates, by and large, have disposable income. And, now, no shortage of people willing to help them dispose of it. For websites. Mailings. Polling!
I have made it easier for candidates and consultants to find each other -- and they have, or at least consultants have sought out seemingly prosperous candidates -- and thus the cost of getting elected has gone ever upwards. Kitchen table candidates and judicial campaigns -- the kinds of candidacies I thought I was promoting -- have gone the way of straw boaters or spats.
I do not flatter myself that I am solely responsible for this -- but I have, to my regret, contributed to some extent. (And I can't even get most of the consultants to buy ads -- so I have made the process worse and managed not to profit thereby.)
So what's left?
For me, what remains is the goal of getting and keeping the public more involved and engaged in the judicial election process. Because improving the quality of the judiciary is possible when increased attention is paid to judicial candidates. And increased attention will follow from nonpartisan primaries... and November runoffs.
Actually ranked-choice voting takes no longer to tabulate than traditional voting; just needs the propler software. There are several websites out there that present the process and discuss its advantages and disadvantages, if anyone is interested. (Just a simple Google search.) It definitely has a lot to offer in a situation like ours.
ReplyDelete